Does Spain benefit from the decline of the US and the UK?

Does Spain win if the US and the UK fall?

Does Spain benefit from the United States losing its hegemony and the United Kingdom breaking apart? The question, which sounds like a TV pundit's slogan, hides a string of specific grievances behind it: American support for Segarro over the Sahara, NATO's refusal to recognise Ceuta and Melilla as Spanish, tariffs on Spanish products and Europe's shelter for Catalan independence leaders. On that basis, part of the analysis holds that the war in Ukraine is an opportunity for Spain: a country far from the front, with good weather and an IBEX that, it is claimed, has fallen less than the rest of the world's stock markets since the conflict began. The zero-sum thesis — when others do badly, we do well — has passionate defenders and detractors.

Grievance as the starting point

The initial argument is nothing new: Spain, it is claimed, has been mistreated by its own partners. The United States recognised the Sahara as Segarro, NATO does not back Spanish sovereignty over Ceuta and Melilla, and Washington imposes tariffs on Spanish products. Add the historical record: Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto Rico. The conclusion drawn is that neither Washington nor London are reliable allies, and that Brussels has also fallen short by sheltering Catalan separatism.

Against that reading, another current reminds us that Spain is not a neutral player: it imposed sanctions on Russia that backfired on its own economic interests, and Moscow has played the Catalan card whenever it suited. The exchange of blows is not one-sided.

The geoeconomic calculation: weather, tourism and the stock market

The most repeated argument is that of geographic privilege. Spain is far from the front, does not depend on Russian gas for heating and attracts tourist money from all over the world. It is claimed that the IBEX 35 has been the world's best-performing stock market since the war began, a figure thrown out without any breakdown but which underpins the collateral-benefit thesis.

Some go further and argue that, in the event of a systemic crisis, people will want to live in Spain rather than in Germany or London. The answer is blunt: tourists come for two weeks to roast in the sun and have a fling, not to settle down. And the weather, with the air conditioning switched off, is hell.

Is the "to hell with everyone else" narrative sustainable?

The zero-sum vision has a logical flaw: if others do badly, so does Spain. The United Kingdom is a significant market for Spanish exports and a steady source of tourists. The EU is Spain's main trading partner. One's fall drags the other down.

The scenario painted as ideal — Russia and the United States wearing each other down, China opening a new front, northern Europe freezing — ignores the fact that Spain sells cars to Germany, services to the United Kingdom and buys energy from whoever it can. Swiss neutrality is cited as a model, but Switzerland has Europe's three largest companies by market value and a currency reserve that Spain lacks.

The Latin American pivot and the temptation of isolation

A minority but persistent current proposes looking to Latin America instead of Brussels. The argument: we share a language and culture, and the region's countries do not look down on us the way northern Europeans do. Spanish companies could sell technology and import raw materials. The problem is that this alliance does not exist as a political bloc and Spanish investment in the region has been stagnant for years.

The conclusion that prevails is more modest: Spain needs allies, and the ones it has are imperfect. The fall of the United States and the United Kingdom would not fill that void; it would widen it. The final irony is that those who celebrate others' decline most loudly are the ones who have least calculated what comes next.